Celebrating rugby as a team sport

I think too often we tend to overlook team performances for individual ones on this thread. Debating world XVs and world class players, Lions squads etc are all good fun (sometimes!) but like the IRB player awards invariably provoke a mixture of confusion, anger and resentment.

We all like to highlight individual performances and compare individual players against other individuals from club or national sides. In doing so, however, we overlook the fact that those individuals depend on the players around them. Combinations are working together to allow individuals to operate as they'd prefer. Take away that team spirit though and the individual units that comprise the team invariably suffer. You only have to look at sides like the Barbarians in recent times who generally lack that team ethos and you see how the performance suffers as a result.

I often joke with my Kiwi posters about my Canterbury heritage. When the black shirt comes on for the national side though I don't care where the player is from or what he's achieved. I only want what's best for the team. If McCaw or Carter were off their game, then by all means bring on a player like Cruden or Vito who were in better form. Doesn't matter where they're from or what they've achieved in the game. The team comes before any player. From that point of view I can see where some posters have a preference for club rugby because they believe the right decisions are made for the team. National politics or provincial rivalry don't enter the equation.

So this is how I see the countries in world rugby as teams at this current time.

NZ Aware of their weaknesses in terms of age and depth and working to become better across the board. Capable as a team of exploiting their oppositions' frailties and able to convert their chances into points. A strong collective belief in the team but when they encounter a side who are able to compete or excel in an area, they can find it difficult to adapt their play to get the better of their opponents.

SA fully aware of their strengths and able to beat most teams at their own game. Stubbornness can be their downfall against sides who can match their power or at least compete in other ways. There is a subtlety to their game which can often be neglected.

England like SA are trying to vary their game while building on their strengths. They have a good blend of age and experience (though not as strong in the latter as SA) and are beginning to build more confidence through more consistent performances but still have to discover their right balance and overall selection.

Australia have been extremely adept at covering up their weaknesses and accentuating their strengths but recent injuries and players at their disposal are making this increasingly difficult to achieve this. They still possess a mental capacity to forget about past disappointments and find a way to win games or compete when they by all rights shouldn't.

France have selection issues and tactical stubbornness. Against better sides they go into their conservative shells instead of taking the game enough to their opposition.

Wales have a growing self belief in their abilities and a stable selection in general. They lack confidence against the top ranked SH sides but are delivering on their potential up north.

Ireland have been playing the wrong tactics for the players they have at their disposal. They lack consistency and as a result have been unable to impose themselves on a wide range of countries. Equally capable of brilliance and ineptness greater consistency would deliver much better results.

Samoa have worked hard on the fundamentals of their game and are the inverse of Argentina who have worked hard to broaden their game. Both these countries struggle to field their best squads and therefore lack the ability to consistently perform thought this is improving (more for Samoa). Italy fall into this camp as well.

Scotland know what works for them and what they should strive to do. But in trying to do the latter they often ignore the former and end up doing neither.

Individual performances are all well and good and different players stand out in different games. The media are obsessed with man of the match and player ratings but too often these individual displays are not seen within the context of the overall team performance. To gain consistency of results you can't rely on the same individuals. You need to have your players working towards a system and an overall team plan executed well. To have individuals do their job they all have to be combining and working towards a collective goal. It doesn't matter how many world class players you have or who individually did things better in a game. What matters is how all the players worked together to achieve the team goal.

Good post, on the Ireland front I have to agree, Kidney had us playing a SA bash em up the middle type game that I'm surprised work at all. I definitely think we are going to be a lot more consistent under Joe Schmidt and he will get the player selection and tactics right if his time at Leinster is anything to go by.

I notice the Lions isnt on the list...is that because its not a team and rather about individuals...looks that way.

Joking aside I think the current AB side has a real team feel to it in the same way as the Cantab side. Many of the Seniors are cantabs and the C Smiths, Mealamus etc mean a ton of experience .

The way they work with incoming players is a measure of a team rather than a group of individuals. Luatua couldnt rave on more about the support he got from his piers and look at the way he played. Same with those 20 or so that have debuted since the 2011 world cup. Not many have failed, if any.

Credit here has to go to Hansen and his lot as much as the players and theres not a lot he's saying or doing wrong. He has a nice balance of introducing new players yet remaining loyal to others, he's supportive of the sabbaticals, respectful of the AB tradition- all the things Henry fought so hard to bring to the side after Mitchell's autocratic rantings.